Chrysler 300C & SRT8 Forums banner

21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I don't like prop rods either. My 06 came with the gas shocks so I was happy about that. It's actually the first car I've ever had that I didn't have to mod to have em. My firefighter buddy on the other hand hates them, as he has seen many a buddy hurt when there is an underhood fire and those things go off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
vvv90 said:
... Also about the hood prop. Yes, it's nice to have gas shocks for the hood. I heard though that the new 300C has a hood prop and that they removed the gas shocks for future models. :eek:
My 83 Benz 380SL has neither gas shocks nor a hood prop. It has springs that hold the hood open when it is pushed up beyond a certain point. They still work after more than 20 years. Why not use springs?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
artichoke said:
My 83 Benz 380SL has neither gas shocks nor a hood prop. It has springs that hold the hood open when it is pushed up beyond a certain point. They still work after more than 20 years. Why not use springs?

Good point. One of my first cars was a 76 Bonneville (huge car) and it had springs. The only thing is it squeaked real bad. Maybe that's the reason.

Every older car I've owned that had gas shocks (usually on the rear hatch) failed later in life because they leak.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall those spring hinges took up quite a bit of underhood space...maybe that is why the manufacturers started moving away from them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
My '00 Silverado has the springs. Yes, they do take up more space, but I think the main reason they went to the gas rods is price, (of course), and less weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
jeepgrady said:
My '00 Silverado has the springs. Yes, they do take up more space, but I think the main reason they went to the gas rods is price, (of course), and less weight.
My quick assumption was that springs would be cheap. But maybe the anchor point on the fenders has to be reinforced, and assembling a spring under tension might be difficult on the assembly line I guess. I suppose it might cost a few bucks more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
kevenj said:
Well you are looking at it wrong; what you have is basically a $80,000 car, missing a few little details such as a hood light, for $40,000. ...)
If Chrysler can pretty much make a Benz for half price, which I have not seen credibly disputed here (one could imagine that we're biased though), what is happening to Benz?

Well according to Auto Extremist in his review of the Detroit Auto show, http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml , Benz is indeed going down the tubes. My personal view is the same. There's no excitement to them and mostly they are pushing a buncha SUV crossovers. Who woulda thought the Benz brand would come to this? :sad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Well if you want to add a tether light I would suggest the Under hood light assembly from the Chevy Truck. Its a Lens bulb with a magnetic base and has about 10-15 foot cord for placement. I have been thinking about getting 2 of them, One front one back for the magnum, but right now I keep my old hiking LED head lamp in the car.

-Robert
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
artichoke said:
If Chrysler can pretty much make a Benz for half price, which I have not seen credibly disputed here (one could imagine that we're biased though), what is happening to Benz?

Well according to Auto Extremist in his review of the Detroit Auto show, http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml , Benz is indeed going down the tubes. My personal view is the same. There's no excitement to them and mostly they are pushing a buncha SUV crossovers. Who woulda thought the Benz brand would come to this? :sad:

He certainly didn't have anything nice to say about Chrysler either.

Though I agree with some of his critical comments about all the different cars and manufacturers, this guy is just way too negative to even be remotely profetic. In fact, I'd love to see what he said about the 300 or the charger, and even the Mustang a couple years ago. I'd be willing to put money on it that he underestimated their popularity and that his personal opinion was off the mark of the general buying population's feelings. I just can't stand such subjective negativity. It's usually short sighted and plainly overlooks what necessary to understand the whole picture.

Peter M. DeLorenzo = douche bag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
vvv90 said:
He certainly didn't have anything nice to say about Chrysler either.

Though I agree with some of his critical comments about all the different cars and manufacturers, this guy is just way too negative to even be remotely profetic.
He was generally negative, but I have to say I agreed with him many times. These new Lincolns don't look like Lincolns, they look like Toyotas. Benz looked BOOOORING. And he wasn't uniformly negative. He liked Ford's gigantic pickup truck concept. He was extremely positive on the Camaro, which I agree is a beautiful design.

He was negative on Chrysler. He thinks the full-retro Challenger isn't so hot because it's too retro. I'm not a marketing guy and have no idea how it will sell. And I think he was negative on the Imperial, which I happen to really like, because I guess he has RR's or the "industry's" interests closer to his heart than the interests of middle class American consumers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,382 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
haha FreebirdSRT... you readin' my mind again buddy?? :silly:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
artichoke said:
He was generally negative, but I have to say I agreed with him many times. These new Lincolns don't look like Lincolns, they look like Toyotas. Benz looked BOOOORING. And he wasn't uniformly negative. He liked Ford's gigantic pickup truck concept. He was extremely positive on the Camaro, which I agree is a beautiful design.

He was negative on Chrysler. He thinks the full-retro Challenger isn't so hot because he says it's too retro. I'm not a marketing guy -- have no idea how it will sell. And I think he was negative on the Imperial because he has RR's interests closer to his heart than the interests of middle class American consumers.

I agree with everything you just said, and uniformly with what Douche Bag said. However, I think his OVERALL negativity is just short sighted in a couple ways.

1.) I think the Imperial is ugly but I also think it would be a hit since Chrysler has been able to hit price points others CANNOT (i.e. 300)

2.) The Camaro is a beauty...The problem is he's overlooking how radical the concept is vs. what the street version WILL be....GM will bastardize it. Chrysler and Ford have been more true to their concept designs than ANY car company. ESPECIALLY the Asian cars. Their concepts NEVER EVER EVER look like the production version, and they SHOULD!

3.) The Challenger is hardly a car someone "can make in their garage." He makes references to Chip Foose designs and is COMPLEEEEEETELY OFF HIS MARK! And here's why: Chrysler is being smart because they recognize the resto mod car craze right now....Basically, old sheet metal wrapped around modern technology. People (who can afford it) are eating these up! Just look at the success of http://www.uniqueperformanceproducts.com/default.aspx

If you and I want a resto mod car prepare to pay mid 6 frickin' figures. The Challenger gives it to you for $40k. Mr. DeLorenzo needs to do some fact checking.

4.) He says they should build the Urge.....Build the Urge? It's been done!!! Look at the Caterham or the Atom. The Asian car companies can't ever stay true in production with their concepts and he says "build the Urge?"


Again, I agree with his points and I didn't post 1-4 just to be disagreeable. I'm mearly pointing out where he's narrow minded. I know I can be, we all can.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
(Nurse Linda medicates vvv90 and revives the thread with a repost)....

FreebirdSRT said:
UPDATE: Mopar hood lights

BobF and I (FreebirdSRT) decided to call all today to see what we came up with for hood lights.

Here is a link the the New Thread Update I posted with prices, part numbers and a picture of Chrysler/Jeep hood light. From gathered intel, all hood lights were discontinued at Chrysler/Jeep in 2002, except for a few truck models.

http://www.300cforums.com/forums/general-discussion/14393-update-mopar-hood-light-found.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,382 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
HEMEEE said:
haha FreebirdSRT... you readin' my mind again buddy?? :silly:

No I think you are reading mine and I am all the way in Texas, scary,lol. :wave:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
FreebirdSRT said:
No I think you are reading mine and I am all the way in Texas, scary,lol. :wave:

Excuse me, do you wanna move this to the "ESP Thread" threadjacker? :D




Seriously though. Thanks for finding that out. I guess I was unconsciously aware that I did not have an underhood light because I remember being at a car show during dusk and I couldn't show my motor like I would have wanted to. In fact, I find myself in this situation quite often at cruise-in's. I wonder how bright this is. I always thought a nice, bright, underhood, halogen would be good for showing the motor at night and it should would make the shiny parts "pop!"
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top